Abiogenisis by the Numbers

Description isn't the subject in question, assembly process is. Many, not most. And surely most Earth seeding and chemical affinity theories don't.

If the calculation wasn't obscure you should have had no problems providing a reference. Without trawling through Dembski's books.And since you are happy to tell others to buy Dembski's books to find the calculation (Message 19) I don't see how you can complain about unfairness. If you can't be bothered to buy the book then why should anyone else ?

No. I've heard numbers like that referenced so many times that I figured you guys had too and knew how to refute them........

You shouldn't be ashamed of those things. You don't see how? Honestly?You chose the one passage in the Bible where God inflicts ignorance on non-believers, so that they become naturalists who create their own false objectivity.

This is true.......and I only needed to be asked. If you guys then insist that I give you specfic calculations, you're on your own, but I can supply references. The only reason I haven't already is because you guys were only asking for calculations.I'll dig up some references tomorrow or tonight.

Seemed a fitting commentary on materialism in general and an appropriate signature for these boards, but I didn't think you'd take it as my attempt at an actual rebuttle.

Of course the assembly process is key to the question. Your rebuttal implies that those theories discuss the assembly without discussing that which is being assembled. So I'll ask again, How do the three theories you mention other than RNA world describe the first replicators? (or the assembly of the first replicators, if you prefer)? About what percentage, since you are knowledgeable in this area? "Earth seeding" isn't a proper abiogenesis theory. It simply describes how life arose on this planet and not how life actually arose."Underwater vent" is also not a complete abiogenesis theory. It simply describes where life arose on this planet.Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "chemical affinity" theory (perhaps you could provided a reference).In any case, you've given nothing but your "surely" that "most" of these "theories" don't use RNA as replicators in their systems.

You do realize that PaulK asked you 107 messages ago, and you've been asked in dozens of messages since then?

If you dont hold to physical teleolgy & any kind of telomatic theology without moral fanaticism, it is not necessarily a desperate step. But as the second part of the quote Wounded King showed, it TOO would reply WITHIN Darwin's MISTAKEN ATTRIBUTION of ICEAGELANDFORMchange with CORRELAT(ED) (assuming such, and THAT IS WHAT IS QUESIONABLE but Crick navigated the issue textually) organic form MODIFICATIONS in the same TIME by finding another projection from Kant's systematic constitution even if aliens were not causal in the same community of thought. In the whole I see it simply as the possiblity of extending Newton's "Earth as a point", reexplaining the point in terms of the history of logic. Crick had the force, or so he thought that coded DNA, but the place was still in question. The philosophical problem however is failing to understand that errors of physical teleology result rather from final effects being causal in the freedom to discuss effecient causation in any time period. Crick as I understood him (in the double M book etc) took RNA kinetics to REPLACE the NOTION of Vitalism & by so doing he must of thought he could avoid the placement of Biblical Creationism in the vertical that Scientific Creationism need fill should the purpose of man's USE of modern biological knowledge be fullfileed sans human-made catastrophe should nanoecology NOT be in the incident place AVOIDANCE textually teaches students today what IS NOT on Earth but biological.It would be better if we restricted our SENSE of the topography of life, to Earth, until futher issues of geometry were propositonally no longer objectionable but I am no "thought police". The problem was one of substituting INTO ONE SUBSTANCE or NOT THINKING OF GOD. Crick simply made a cake that he could eat also. He probably didnt care if an alien would learn the recipe. Gladyhev's classic formulation is not so loose and restricts even chemical chirality to the Earth's rotation and thus seems perferable to me, even if we dont understand topography AS CROIZAT already did! This way there IS NOT END RUN AROUND KANT. Simply an intution that Kant might be mistaken. That was Bertrand Russell's yard long length and might be yours. I dont know. Death on PLANET EARTH is not IMMEDIATELY transitable to Life OFF EARTH even assuming a perfect carrier of the information we DONT HAVE. How do we know that behavior is not the means to MOVE chemical heat sinks TOWARDS the SUN?? This can still be reductionistic and deny the arithemetic of any Crick coding trasfer for I said NOTHING of the location of said alienation modern biology has made ANTHROPOLGICIALLY but rahther relied on the physical junction of the hierachy no matter the highest level comprehended. Perhaps every plant is not alien to humanity but only in possesion of an isothermal not well defined but ordered nontheless. It took me many years to not "see" plants as "green things". And I now DO understand WHY Mayr attempted to replace teleology with teleomatics. I bet that one could find Fisher STILL in disagreement statstically but I have not tried that thought on for size of the Columbus's diameter dispute.

The whole point is that you are bothered that a number has not been put forth by "the other side", and that it means something significant that the individuals that are incredulous have. So what?1)You winning the lottery: is greater under the right conditions
2)LOL, you nailing Halle Berry: If you were the last two on earth it would happen at some point...maybe
3)Struck by lightning: climb up to the top of a tree during an electrical storm in Florida.The point is that under the "right" conditions these 3 incredulous events you have presented are completely feasible...so, calculate the odds under conditions that are incredulous and you get an incredulous number HOWEVER under the "right" conditions calculate the odds. Not as improbable, right? However, this does not mean 'oh here is a number of probability'...gotta have something a little more to back it.

Ah, but Risen is supposedly a Christian so would need to be married to her before nailing Halle Berry and if they're the last two on earth who is going to marry them?

Yeah, sure, but come on we are talking about Halle Berry...I think biochemistry would take over at some point...there might be disgust and dislike involved, but.....hehe off topic.

RL, we know that you don't. What I can't figure out is why you lack any sense of shame or embarassment about taking positions in a field that you know absolutely nothing about.

All of it. The whole thing. The sentence doesn't make any sense. I cannot discern its meaning because I don't know what you are saying.How much clearer do I have to be? As near as I can tell, that utterance is nonsense. It might help if you looked up the Michelson-Morely experiment, so that you knew what the fuck I was talking about. I know you're talking about special relativity, ok? Special relativity was based on the Maxwell equations, which were themselves an attempt to model the behavior of light observed in the Michelson-Morely experiment. We've already shown you how cell walls can form inorganically. This objection has no merit. Do you think that you could stop making things up for a minute? Thanks. Did you even read the paper? I guess not. Otherwise you would have seen that it was about string theory, clear as day. Maybe you'd be interested in this paper, too. Page Not FoundAnd you think that's a legitimate basis for debate? Here's a revolutionary idea. Instead of acting like a smug ignoramus, why don't you look up what I'm talking about when I use words that you don't understand? What the fuck are you talking about?Do you see why I get confused? Yur statements have absolutely no relationship to the topic, to biology, or even to physical reality. If nonsense and ignorance is the best you have to offer, which it seems to be, we're done.

Even though JC (RL) is gone (for now). The point isn't about cell walls arising it is about RNA surviving without them until they do.